Retrospective US Presidential Election: 1872

[Nerdlinger]

Originally Posted by Turquoise Blue

Can I write in for Woodhull too?

You can if you want. I mean, it won't count for anything, but at least it would bump the thread.

[freethinker]

I always thought Greely looked just like Benjamen Franklin anyways both were great men

Grant was a drunk monster

[Kome]

Originally Posted by freethinker

I always thought Greely looked just like Benjamen Franklin anyways both were great men

Grant was a drunk monster

And Greenly was a madman (and dead).

edit: Cant forget the dead. Thats rather important.

[Justin Green]

See I could vote for Woodhull and respect people who do because even though she cant be sworn in, her running mate can. Thats what pissed me off so much about Jenness voters was they literally threw their votes away. And ultimately destroyed the chances of Marge Wright, the only female canidate with a decent shot.

[Fleetlord]

Originally Posted by Justin Green

See I could vote for Woodhull and respect people who do because even though she cant be sworn in, her running mate can. Thats what pissed me off so much about Jenness voters was they literally threw their votes away. And ultimately destroyed the chances of Marge Wright, the only female canidate with a decent shot.

Actually, while there were many reasons why voting for Jenness was a bad idea, it had been explictly stated that Jenness would be allowed to take office had she won.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Talkie Toaster

I clicked wrong, if it gets close then my vote was for Grant, not Greeley.

I thought Nerdlinger said that votes can't be changed. Sorry, chief. Don't think it'll be a problem, though, but it is still early.

[Justin Green]

And I dont agree with that decision.

And in all honesty I think its a terrible idea to change the age requirements. I have met very few people I would trust to be president under 35 , and none under 30. Young people with a solid look at history and politics are a rare bird. And they dont have enough life experience either. I say this as a 24 year old.

Another serious issue is a younger president might be less likely to wamt to pass the torch on after two terms and retire.Especially if hes supposed to leave office before age 40.

I could see lowering age requirements on other offices to an extant.

[Georgepatton]

No retreat, no surrender! Another term for our man Grant!

[Komodo20]

Gotta go with Grant, he has the only beard in this election.

Okay, well that's not my only reason, but shouldn't it be enough?

[Japhy]

A Vote for Greeley (And presumeably a vote for any of his EV heirs if he wins) is a vote to abandon civil rights and a vote that at the very least enables White Supremacy in America. Be it a vote for Gatz Brown, David Davis, Thomas Hendricks, or Claude Jenkins.

If you want to oppose Grant at least vote for someone who wasn't blatantly racist and morally bankrupt, that is, Charles O'Connor and the Strait-Out/Bourbon Democrats.

[Japhy]

Originally Posted by freethinker

I always thought Greely looked just like Benjamen Franklin anyways both were great men

Grant was a drunk monster

Yup, Grant was a Drunk Monster, the Slaves were happy being Slaves, and the Confederacy seceded over Import Taxes.

[Evan]

Cross-posting from the 1868 thread as a warning:

If Greeley wins, according to Nerdlinger, we will get a runoff where we can choose between everyone who got any electoral votes from Liberal Republican electors. You might consider this a good thing. However, all their candidates are bad.

Check my post in 1868 for details.
Even Justice David Davis was, to my shock and horror, a racist:

Davis was clearly out of sympathy with the Radicals. Writing to his brother-in-law in March 1866, Davis noted the country's need for "quiet and rest; fraternal relations should be cultivated, instead of hatred engendered; our industrial interests should be cherished, and our finances watched, protected & guarded." Instead of such quiet, however, "[t]he idea that the negro must have suffrage, & all other rights in the opinion of Sumner and that class of men, rides higher than all material things. And hence we are to have agitation, double distilled."

Therefore, I cast a protest write-in vote for Virginia Woodhull, who has unjustly been kept off the ballot in this TL as well. She and Douglass are the only two candidates I can confidently support.

[TNF]

Originally Posted by Japhy

A Vote for Greeley (And presumeably a vote for any of his EV heirs if he wins) is a vote to abandon civil rights and a vote that at the very least enables White Supremacy in America. Be it a vote for Gatz Brown, David Davis, Thomas Hendricks, or Claude Jenkins.

If you want to oppose Grant at least vote for someone who wasn't blatantly racist and morally bankrupt, that is, Charles O'Connor and the Strait-Out/Bourbon Democrats.

This, this, this. I'm voting for Grant because I want Reconstruction to continue and for the South to be purged of white supremacist leadership a century ahead of schedule.

[Æsir]

Originally Posted by Japhy

If you want to oppose Grant at least vote for someone who wasn't blatantly racist and morally bankrupt, that is, Charles O'Connor and the Strait-Out/Bourbon Democrats.

Really? From Wikipedia O'Conor seems to have been heavily into "States' rights", opposed fighting the Confederacy, and provided counsel to Jefferson Davis after the war. From what has been said here, I think the progressive alternative to Grant is probably the Prohibition Party, despite their core plank being a failure in hindsight.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Æsir

] From what has been said here, I think the progressive alternative to Grant is probably the Prohibition Party, despite their core plank being a failure in hindsight.

I'm leaning Prohibition as well (in case the write-in campaign for Woodhull fails). As the link on Page 1 shows, they did support equal suffrage regardless of race. Still, I would like some more details on just how they'd go about achieving it...

[Mr.J]

Originally Posted by Justin Green

And I dont agree with that decision.

And in all honesty I think its a terrible idea to change the age requirements. I have met very few people I would trust to be president under 35 , and none under 30.

TBH, I have met very few people I would trust to be president period, whether they're 20 or 80.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by Mr.J

TBH, I have met very few people I would trust to be president period, whether they're 20 or 80.

Hear hear!

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson, from whom the 1800 election was unjustly robbed ITTL

In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Komodo20

Gotta go with Grant, he has the only beard in this election.

Okay, well that's not my only reason, but shouldn't it be enough?

It should.

[metastasis_d]

Originally Posted by Evan

Cross-posting from the 1868 thread as a warning:

If Greeley wins, according to Nerdlinger, we will get a runoff where we can choose between everyone who got any electoral votes from Liberal Republican electors. You might consider this a good thing. However, all their candidates are bad.

I wasn't paying attention, why if Greeley wins?

[Komodo20]

Originally Posted by metastasis_d

I wasn't paying attention, why if Greeley wins?

He died after the popular election but before the meeting of the Electoral College. His electors divided their votes (66 total, I believe) amongst 4 candidates who had not been on the popular ballot.